User talk:Olaf Simons

Archive

2.6 and 2.6.2
@Robert Waalk - your criticism was justified - I feel the entire thing needs a bit of re-design. Stuff of 2.6.2 has to go into the opening paragraphs of 2.6 - the entire Rushdie controversy should be there. Give me time for an alternative version I will offer here on this page to hear whether you feel it solves the problems - it should have place for fantasy and magical realism. The weekend should give me time... --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine with me. Just tell me where you'd like me to help, I'm pretty good at streamlining material, especially in any instance where your phrasing might seem a little odd, since you are writing a high quality, essay in a non-native language. I'd love to add things in, hope you kept the Naguib Mahfouz ref. But any I'm hear, just tell me what you need.--Robert Waalk (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would only add a reference to Brave New World into 20th century develops and expand discussion on Orwell along side this to talk about the novels evolving role into a place of social criticism and warning.--Robert Waalk (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I like the article. Most of my beefs were met, I'd still like to add more on the development of popular fiction genres, like mystery, which originates from Poe, and discuss Magical Realism which is not really discussed on its own. I saw the Orwell and Huxley reference at the end, but I think they could be expanded into a much larger section coinciding with the development of the "Political author" and a new section on the novel as social criticism would be a nice place to put them. A mixture of them and Lessing among others would go nicely. The only other major thing I saw was no mention, really, of existentialism as a trend, no discussion of the impacts and writing of major figures such as Sartre, Beckett, Camus and others. Other novels, such as Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and Melville's Moby Dick could be discussed as major existential novels.--Robert Waalk (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Robert Waalk, its a wiki - modify things where you feel they have to be modified. The one thing to be borne in mind is: are there things that should rather go into a special article (we can't give interpretations of novels in this article...). Expanding the popular fictiion section is esp. necessary as I feel, I am out of touch here. The images I offered (visiting shops in Oldenburg), should be replaced - I feel I was not precise enough on pulp fiction and romances, fantatsy, sf. and wish I were traveling through the US or UK to take some pictures in shops. --Olaf Simons (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Month names
Thanks for the catch. This is manual and quite painstaking - obviously I goofed on this one. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Novel
Hello. The other day I was reading some of Novel, and I found it very educational. I noticed you've made a lot of edits to that article, and I want to say that I really appreciate the work you've put into it. I was wondering if you had anything to add to the Fiction or Non-fiction articles, perhaps about the origins or advent of those concepts? --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I could... I was not that sure that I did a good job with the novel article. It was basically designed to leave it to my students who tend to get their information from there, so why not offer the knowledge I want them to gain right where they are likely to look for it. Thing is: it costs time - time in which I should publish articles in journals. Thinking of the 2.8k visitors the article gets on a normal day like yesterday, the temptation is, of course, immense to write for Wikipedia rather than for journals. I'll take a look into both. Semester will end in July, things are rough until then and I am not quite sure what will happen then. Delighted that someone like it, --Olaf Simons (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: The novel
I did a history merge on the novel article so that all the edits are in one place. I usually like to keep the old redirects around, so that's why there's a redirect at the title "The novel". I don't think it's doing any harm. Graham 87 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * just different policies. We'd delete it in Germany's WP and correct the links that led to the odd page - I mean, it is not very brilliant to have each page with a redirect for those who want to have a "The" in front of it, "Novel" plus "The novel" (which one?) (and then: take a look at the pages that use The novel - some of them do it with further oddities like Novel ... but I do not mind either, was just the odd admin's curiosity --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Olaf. I did get your note about my changing the order of the definition section. I was simply trying to respond to Interlingua's concern about the opening sentence and how to make it fit the rest of the section. But I see that you have a lot more academic experience with the history of the novel than I do, so I'll defer to your judgment on the actual content of the section and on whether those paragraphs should remain in chronological sequence. My thought was simply that if the section is labeled "Definition," then the historical development is less important for arranging the material than grouping similar elements would be. But you're the one calling the shots on the page right now, and you're doing a great job! Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not mind the edit - just wanted to make sure that my attempt to revise it accordingly has produced a new (language wise) correct text. --Olaf Simons (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code:

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Snoopy-7-12-65.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Snoopy-7-12-65.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone removed it from the novel article without giving a clearer argument. I put it back. If there is a majority of votes for removing it, that may be done. --09:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Olaf, it looks like the generic Non-free comic on File:Snoopy-7-12-65.png is not a sufficient justification. You'll need to fill out a Non-free use rationale, probably using it to replace the Information currently there. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, does it not have the comic Non-free use rationale?


 * That's a poorly formed English sentence that I can't decipher, so let me give you several answers. The comic itself has the United Features Syndicate copyright. The file page has Non-free comic which does not seem to apply, and also says "see en:File:Peanuts 4 Oct 1950.png" but I see nothing there that elucidates and in any case the file page needs to be explicit, not reference another file page that might change (or might already have changed since the note was added). - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a German administrator I would have to delete it. Happily en.wikipedia is less restricted. Wouldn't you like to give it the proper rationale. I felt I had solved the problem according to their wishes, yet was not too sure... --Olaf Simons (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Snoopy-7-12-65.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Snoopy-7-12-65.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hi! I was wondering whether you would consider the request at: File_talk:Great_Vowel_Shift.svg Thanks! -- TimNelson (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * see my answer there. Do not know whether to give the more complicated diagram. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Snoopy-7-12-65.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Snoopy-7-12-65.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative
We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February
Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to WikiProject Novels/Members

Hi Olaf!
It's Magnus... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.240 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 1c6ae22d6dd118a1a2bb7cae02f19c52
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Research Centre for Social and Cultural Studies in Gotha
Hi Olaf, all sorts of problems.
 * The article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in English Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. In this case, it has an explicitly non-commercial licence, and cannot be used on English Wikipedia. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. Your use on the German Wikipedia is presumably under German copyright law, but that doesn't apply here.
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines.
 *  It would be an ordeal to write different versions &mdash; it's obviously a matter for you if you don't think it's worth writing a referenced non-copyright version. The fact is that under your own copyright licence, it is illegal for us to use the deleted text on English Wikipedia. You need to either change that licence or follow the steps above to allow use on en-wikipedia

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes - but: This is the original version de:Forschungszentrum Gotha für kultur- und sozialwissenschaftliche Studien. Copyrighted under commons licencing, now translated by my colleague. I am allowed to use it on our website, and it should be copyrighted under the same orginal license on the coresponding English page.
 * As to the sources: our coordinator will give the same links etc. on Monday, she only told me that she could not continue as the article was deleted. --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your website is asserting restricted legal rights to the English translation. It cannot be accepted unless you are prepared to change the licence or get an OTRS ticket as outlined above. The German version is also a copyright infringement, so that doesn't help you at all.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Question remains: copyright infringement on whose side - the research centre usees my Wikipedia-article under its University of Erfurt-License... But again: the proposed en:wp article is a transaltion of the de:wp article and that German aricle was and is the original. Do I have to care about others (my own Erfurt University) using my original de:wp free license article with their copyright? --Olaf Simons (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes you do. There is verifiable evidence that the Erfurt University website is claiming the legal rights to impose a restricted copyright on both the English and German versions. Neither your English or German version gives any other sources, so we have to assume that you are infringing the University's copyright. If they are infringing your copyright by imposing more restrictive conditions than you intended, that's for you to sort out with them. The choices are
 * If the university is infringing your copyright, sort it out with them and repost when the restrictive licence has been replaced by a CC-BY-SA 3.0 or public domain Licence
 * Follow the licensing steps outlined in the link above
 * Rewrite in your own words.
 * There is no way that the article can be reinstated in its previous version while there is a verifiable assertion of copyright from the university, and an unverifiable claim from you  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You won, I say it as a fellow admin from Germany's Wikipedia with secret admiration --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. It was also a test. I know the revert rates on articles newcomers feed into the system, they are excessive. Had I done it myself, I'd have edited it axplicitly as my translation of de:wp and that would have been it (I am relatively sure), yet I wanted my colleague to learn how to edit. Mission failed. Peculiar desaster, for you know I will not quarel with my own university. The new question will be: how much of the wording do I have to change to make it an original article. You do not leave me much of a choice here. Looking forward to that debate. ;) --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Bardens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homburg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the not, dear bot. Problem solved. --Olaf Simons (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Great Vowel Shift
Hello! Could you tell me which font is used on ? I want to add a section with RP vowels as pronounced in 2014. Peter238 (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I can't any longer. My original was not svg formatted, this is the formatting of other people (for which I am grateful). It looks however like something as regular as Times New Roman (which would be a good choice for all these special characters to find a distinct definition. --Olaf Simons (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try that. If it's not TNR, the guys at the What The Font forum will figure the font out. Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy
Hello, Olaf Simons. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean because I am a historian - exploring the history of Auguste Comte I should not offer documents relating to him? --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I mean you shouldn't be using your blog as a source without 1) identifying you are doing so and 2) getting consensus that it is a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't I identify myself? User account my name, article on the object my name. Could I offer such documents directly on Wikipedia I would (but you know the original research rule - says me the German Wikipedia Admin who has been on bord for over a decade). Such a document is extremely rare, I was surprised when I saw it, it changes our notion of Crowdfunding as something new. --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not use edit summaries nor the talk page. You should have done both. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. I am sometimes lazy with these things. Should not be. Criticism accepted. --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Great Alliance" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Alliance. Since you had some involvement with the Great Alliance redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)